Comparison of the use of screening tools for evaluating cognitive impairment in patients with Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background: Screening tests have been used for cognitive deficits in Parkinson's disease (PD). Objective: This study compared the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test, the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the clock drawing test for this purpose. Methods: A total of 50 patients with PD were selected, 41 (82%) were diagnosed with dementia by the criteria of the Movement Disorder Society. The test Scales for Outcomes in Parkinson's Disease-Cognition (SCOPA-Cog) was used as the gold standard in comparison with the screening tests. Results: The MoCA test (AUC=0.906) had a sensitivity of 87.80% and specificity of 88.89%. When the MMSE was associated with the clock drawing test (AUC=0.936), it had a specificity of 66.67% and sensitivity of up to 97.56%. Conclusion: The study suggests that the MoCA test can be a good screening test in PD. However, MMSE associated with the clock drawing test may be more effective than the MoCA test.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".